Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BKN lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
BKN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 165 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 13/18 +7.6
Duren Open 11/14 +4.3
Thompson Open 7/14 -2.3
Robinson Hard 3/6 +0.6
LeVert Hard 3/6 +0.4
Holland II 2/6 -1.7
Klintman 2/6 -2.4
Green 2/5 -1.1
Reed Open 3/3 +2.6
Jenkins 1/3 -1.5

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 8/17 +2.2
Clowney Hard 5/13 +0.2
Claxton Open 6/8 +2.4
Dëmin Hard 3/8 -0.5
Powell 3/7 -1.7
Martin Hard 1/7 -5.3
Williams Hard 1/6 -3.7
Wilson Hard 3/5 +3.2
Sharpe 2/3 +1.4
Mann Hard 1/3 0.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
BKN
49/85 Field Goals 34/80
57.6% Field Goal % 42.5%
6/26 3-Pointers 17/46
23.1% 3-Point % 37.0%
21/30 Free Throws 22/26
70.0% Free Throw % 84.6%
63.6% True Shooting % 58.5%
59 Total Rebounds 38
11 Offensive 8
35 Defensive 22
32 Assists 26
2.46 Assist/TO Ratio 1.30
13 Turnovers 19
14 Steals 5
1 Blocks 1
19 Fouls 24
80 Points in Paint 32
29 Fast Break Pts 12
26 Points off TOs 11
16 Second Chance Pts 9
36 Bench Points 32
24 Largest Lead 10
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Duren
30 PTS · 11 REB · 0 AST · 30.1 MIN
+34.83
2
Cade Cunningham
34 PTS · 1 REB · 10 AST · 32.7 MIN
+27.27
3
Michael Porter Jr.
28 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 31.7 MIN
+17.71
4
Nic Claxton
17 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 30.7 MIN
+17.02
5
Ausar Thompson
14 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 33.5 MIN
+15.91
6
Paul Reed
6 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 15.1 MIN
+13.76
7
Noah Clowney
19 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 30.7 MIN
+12.48
8
Caris LeVert
10 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 20.3 MIN
+10.59
9
Duncan Robinson
7 PTS · 1 REB · 8 AST · 31.4 MIN
+9.83
10
Javonte Green
8 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 19.6 MIN
+7.63
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 J. Wilson 24' 3PT (9 PTS) (D. Sharpe 3 AST) 125–107
Q4 0:06 D. Sharpe REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 125–104
Q4 0:09 MISS P. Reed Free Throw 2 of 2 125–104
Q4 0:09 TEAM offensive REBOUND 125–104
Q4 0:09 MISS P. Reed Free Throw 1 of 2 125–104
Q4 0:09 T. Etienne shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Reed 2 FT) 125–104
Q4 0:09 P. Reed REBOUND (Off:4 Def:2) 125–104
Q4 0:09 MISS D. Jenkins running DUNK 125–104
Q4 0:13 D. Jenkins STEAL (1 STL) 125–104
Q4 0:13 J. Wilson bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 125–104
Q4 0:24 J. Green 3PT (8 PTS) (P. Reed 2 AST) 125–104
Q4 0:25 P. Reed REBOUND (Off:3 Def:2) 122–104
Q4 0:32 MISS D. Jenkins 26' 3PT 122–104
Q4 0:37 B. Klintman REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 122–104
Q4 0:44 MISS C. Lanier 26' 3PT 122–104

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

BKN Brooklyn Nets
28
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.4

Lethal shot-making over tight contests provided a massive offensive boost, though poor transition defense ate into his margins. He consistently failed to match up on the break, giving away easy transition points after his own misses. His ability to shoot cleanly over smaller defenders in the mid-post remained his defining asset.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +21.5
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Noah Clowney 30.7m
19
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Perimeter gravity pulled opposing bigs away from the rim, but struggles with defensive anchoring severely limited his overall value. He was repeatedly sealed out of the paint by stronger centers, conceding a brutal stretch of offensive rebounds in the third quarter. The scoring efficiency was nearly erased by his inability to secure the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 30.7m
17
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.0

Anchored the defense beautifully by switching onto guards and stifling perimeter penetration late in the shot clock. His rim-running gravity constantly forced weak-side tags, opening up the corners for shooters. A few sloppy moving screens were the only blemishes on a dominant interior performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 23.1m
8
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.7

Playmaking vision was evident, but a brutal string of telegraphed passes resulted in live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. He struggled to navigate over screens, consistently dying on picks and forcing emergency rotations. The sloppy ball security completely overshadowed his creative reads.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Terance Mann 21.8m
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.3

Complete offensive passivity allowed his defender to play free safety and disrupt passing lanes all night. He regularly passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the offensive engine and forcing late-clock bailouts. A lack of resistance at the point of attack further compounded his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 27.1m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

Impact plummeted due to a staggering number of unforced errors, including stepping out of bounds and throwing passes into the third row. He was mercilessly targeted in isolation by opposing wings, offering zero resistance off the dribble. This performance was defined by a complete lack of composure under defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.8

An inability to finish through contact at the rim resulted in empty trips and immediate fast breaks going the other way. He consistently lost his spatial awareness in zone coverage, leaving shooters wide open in the strong-side corner. The combination of bricked layups and blown assignments made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.2

Plagued by foul trouble from over-aggressive closeouts and poor verticality at the rim. He clogged the paint offensively, bringing extra defenders into the driving lanes of his guards. A pattern of biting on pump fakes neutralized any physical advantage he held inside.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Settled exclusively for heavily contested pull-ups early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense on multiple possessions. He was repeatedly beaten on backdoor cuts during a disastrous second-quarter stint. Despite decent length on closeouts, his poor offensive decision-making cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 10.6m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Provided a crucial spacing element by punishing late rotations with decisive spot-up shooting. His defensive positioning was occasionally suspect, getting caught ball-watching and surrendering offensive rebounds. However, his ability to stretch the floor during a tight fourth-quarter run kept his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

Burned multiple times on defensive miscommunications, failing to switch on dribble hand-offs. He offered zero offensive gravity, allowing his defender to aggressively trap the primary ball handler. The short stint was marred by a complete inability to stay in front of his man.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Slow lateral footwork made him an easy target in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points in the paint. He managed to salvage a few possessions with timely cuts to the basket, but the defensive bleed was too severe. Opponents actively hunted him on switches to generate clean looks at the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Ausar Thompson 33.5m
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.9

Elite defensive metrics were heavily diluted by a string of careless offensive fouls and live-ball turnovers in the half-court. His ability to blow up pick-and-rolls at the point of attack kept his overall impact positive. However, poor spacing gravity allowed his primary defender to freely roam the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 32.7m
34
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
+27.6

Masterful manipulation of defensive shells drove a highly efficient offensive engine, though a high volume of unforced passing errors capped his ceiling. He systematically dismantled switching schemes by hunting mismatches on the perimeter. Despite the sloppiness with the ball, his shot creation quality kept the overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +30.1
Creation +6.9
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Duncan Robinson 31.4m
7
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
0.0

Constant defensive targeting by opposing wings erased the value of his off-ball movement and passing. He was repeatedly hunted in isolation during the third quarter, leading to a cascade of defensive breakdowns. Several costly bad-pass turnovers in transition ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 30.1m
30
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+39.4

Utterly dominated the interior through relentless rim-running and securing crucial second-chance opportunities in traffic. His screen-setting angles repeatedly freed up ball handlers against drop coverage, generating high-quality looks all night. The only slight drag on his massive impact was a handful of illegal screen calls.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +27.3
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +13.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Early foul trouble completely neutralized his physical presence and forced passive rotations around the rim. He struggled to contain the pick-and-pop during a rough second-quarter stretch, bleeding points from the perimeter. A lack of vertical spacing on offense further muted his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Disastrous shot selection early in the shot clock fueled long rebounds and immediate opponent fast breaks. His over-aggressiveness on defense led to biting on pump fakes, compromising the weak-side rotation. A prolonged stretch of forcing drives into heavy traffic completely tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Caris LeVert 20.3m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Provided vital secondary creation, consistently collapsing the defense with sharp baseline drives. His active hands in the passing lanes disrupted multiple opponent sets, sparking fast-break opportunities. A few forced mid-range jumpers against set defenses kept his score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-energy closeouts and loose-ball recoveries were largely offset by spacing issues on the offensive end. Opponents sagged off him entirely in the half-court, clogging driving lanes for the primary creators. A pair of costly transition turnovers ultimately flattened his net contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 15.1m
6
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Wreaked havoc as a weak-side helper, altering numerous shots at the rim without fouling. His relentless energy on the offensive glass created vital extra possessions during a stagnant second-quarter stretch. Clean defensive rotations and minimal mistakes yielded a highly efficient, positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Hesitancy to pull the trigger on open perimeter looks bogged down the offensive flow and led to late-clock grenades. He consistently lost his man on baseline cuts, surrendering easy backdoor layups during the first half. The positive hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance defined by poor spatial awareness.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Showed flashes of point-of-attack tenacity, but struggled to organize the offense under pressure. He was repeatedly bullied by bigger guards in the post during his brief stint. Failing to initiate sets smoothly resulted in empty possessions that dragged his score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Rushed his offensive opportunities, jacking up contested perimeter shots instead of moving the ball. A complete lack of defensive rebounding effort allowed opponents to extend possessions during garbage time. This brief appearance was defined by forcing the action rather than playing within the flow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0